Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 12, 2012 12:30pm-1:00pm PDT

12:30 pm
>> any other questions? >> yes. i have a question. we have been following census blocks all this time. are you suggesting we will not? >> there are census blocks. on the north side or the west side. of a particular street, sometimes you can try it on the medium. depending on where the current lines are, we would basically a line the boundaries if there is a zero population. >> all right. >> you are also checking to make sure that we are meeting all of the legal guidelines, correct? and you're going to let us know if we need to do anything.
12:31 pm
>> and other questions? ok. thank you very much. >> may i clarify? on the zero population, do we make this change and tell you we made it? rats it. >> thank you very much. item #three. can -- >> can i ask about the market? >> yes. that is a population of 116 people.
12:32 pm
>> i propose to clarify the earlier point, the plaza is a split across the smaller street as opposed to the major streets. >> one more time? >> the population is 116 people. the deviation for district is 0.63%. >> thank you. [rolling call] please make this change. ok./
12:33 pm
that concludes item #3. thank you for your patience and diligence. and perseverance. moving into item #4, -- >> again, this will be the posted maps that will become the changes that the consultants will present to us next. at our meeting on saturday for our consideration. we will take up the population- related questions. rudy -- moving to item no. 4. the discussion of possible action. we will review the current
12:34 pm
draft and get bolts direction from our editors, members, and a junior editor. we will also focus in particular on the recommendations and have a discussion regarding each of the recommendations for inclusion or not. we will not attempt to group at it but agree in principle to the item and then have our editors offer something to us. with that, but me turn to a number -- to member melara. >> what we are looking at is on
12:35 pm
the composition of the task force page one, i will probably need help with the names that are highlighted. i believe it is the elections department, not the commission that provides technical advice. the next page, number six, it says compactness. we wanted to get a better description. it's maybe the city attorney can provide s a sentence because it looked like it did not look complete. then on page 4 at the top we suggest we put something in there about budget allocation.
12:36 pm
it could also be in the recommendations because that is where it was also put in. is that something that anybody objects to? we would move it to the recommendations but we suggest report that summer. >> could you restate that? >> initially because of the outreach plan mentioned under this paragraph, i suggested there should be something here in the recommendation about the budget allocation not being at the time when we took over, not been to a level we needed. it prevented the task force from outreaching to other sections of the community
12:37 pm
because we could not hire anybody over $10,000. if we had chosen to do it, it would have taken a long time and it would have been fruitless. >> i recommend we include most of what you described, the process we undertook. we had a budget, we identified it was insufficient, we took steps to secure additional resources which prevented us from implementing as much as we wanted to. and that the piece of it is about going forward. >> the next exception, there is a better description so i will put that in here. then at the bottom, we have changed nine traps because we
12:38 pm
lost track of them. so we only have one specific number. and we go all the way to april 14 because we're going to do some tweaking on saturday. >> is the intent that the final would say several tax we will no and no. eventually. >> if anybody can remember the exact number. >> i was going to suggest that we reference the different straps' we have posted an put that together. i presume that they could ... this -- assist us as to what that is. >> there are, as of tonight, 11
12:39 pm
draft maps. >> we have to remember at the last minute, if we have another one. >> it would be helpful to attach them. >> on the next sentence, reviewing the maps continued through april 14. at that meeting, the task force adopted its final map and erased the next sentence after further meetings. then the final map and plan, i have received this -- district 2, 5, at 8 and 9. >> i e-mailed you district 1 and district 4. >> you did? i thought you had sent the deviation.
12:40 pm
>> i sent two. that was the second document. >> i still need to district 3, and district 6, and district 7. i do not have to district 10, either. >> you do not have 5410. >> i have district 5. somebody sent me district 5. >> it does not formatted. i will send it to you tonight. so it is in schreiber's format. >> following that, in general, i do not remember why we
12:41 pm
highlighted general hospital, the boundaries. as it relates tuva -- to the e9 description. i will figure it out. do we want to suggest the selects, the consultants or the work documents? >> if i may, is it correct that, i do not know if there are some recommendations, but if there are three general recommendations, one on process, one on community outreach, and one on decision making. is that accurate? >> there are several recommendations. the first one has to do with the
12:42 pm
task force having more oversight over who will select the consultant. the second one house to do with outreach. i would like to deal with each one separately. the first one is a question if whether we want to put in the recommendation that to the task force considers having something to say. again, that has to be couched with the fact that either we need to be pointed earlier or the process would be expanded by way of the charter. that is another recommendation in order to fit this particular -- there is no way we would have done everything when we were appointed to select a
12:43 pm
consultant and do everything. >> given maps related steps in that process, it sounds like you're asking the question whether we will consider, recommend, i do not know the technical term, the formation of the task force sooner. we would recommend the task force has the responsibility of selecting the consultants. >> or at the very least, develop the work plan for the consultant. >> if we can begin with the first one. a recommendation to form the task force sooner. >> as a point of information, it would require a charter
12:44 pm
amendment to change the timing. there are timing constraints. the board has 60 days. realistically, within the current charter constraints, the task force could meet a month earlier. no more. it might be helpful to clarify whether you're talking about a charter amendment. >> what if we said as soon as possible? mr. pilpel? >> rather than say the task force should consider, i think we should say the city should consider a charter amendment to start the process sooner or the city should consider whether the task force should have the opportunity to select the consultant and discuss the scope of work versus having that happen. the part of it is not a
12:45 pm
recommendation to the next task force, it is to the city. poor example, the charter says -- for example, the charter says it could be changed to provide 30 more days in total. as an example. >> just to keep it simple, i would say it's we're going to do -- if we're going to do additional time, that we do not kid into the minutia of what that would look like. -- get into the minutia of what that would look like. >> i agree. member melara: it would provide that task force with additional
12:46 pm
time in order to possibly have some decision making or some power over the hiring of the consultant or develop the work plan with a consultant. >> excellent. any others on the process? member melara: no. that would be the big piece. if we agree with having something with the consultants and how they're going to do their work, we definitely need to suggest a charter revision of some kind. >> the second paragraph speaks to something different. member melara: the one increasing the city department? that is different. that has to do with, i believe mr. pilpel wanted the task force
12:47 pm
to consider outreach to the city department to tell us, to give us information. some of the questions i had was that all of the departments to not have the information that we would use anywhere. what we need is a city departments that have been for mitch -- information about neighborhoods, and data, and the task at hand. not all departments have any information that is valuable to this task force. i would say, my suggestion would be to city departments maintain specific data related to recognizing communities of interest or applicable data to the task at hand. or something like that. >> that part of it --
12:48 pm
member mondejar: i would say they have this available to the task force. the challenge was that we did not know where to find the list of neighborhood groups. there is a list. we were sent about 500. there was a big spreadsheet sent to west. -- to us. since they have oversight of what we do, we would suggest they maintain neighborhoods or at least point just where to find it instead of us having to write letters to the department, asking them to provide -- >> those are different things. this suggestion was that we ask other departments to make presentations to the task force to consider it making a
12:49 pm
presentation. my point was that all city departments are not necessarily valuable to this task. there are certain departments which maintain certain information. that could include the department of elections. we could include another recommendation that the department of elections maintain information that could be disseminated to the task force at the time that it is needed. that would be a separate question or recommendation. >> can we take these one at a time before we jump to other items and conclude? >> the second one, the second part to that, i thought that one of the things we were not
12:50 pm
supposed to do is look at future demographic and population trends. we are being told to deal with what we have in front of us in terms of population and demographics and to recommend to a future task force to do that is to go beyond our scope of work. >> i agree. member pilpel: i do not have my initial language. i am not sure i used the word future. i agree that it should be struck. my intent was to include the language demographic and population trends. if the department says, based on that, the number of kids is skyrocketing, that was not the point. it is to how we got where we were at the time, which is the time we're projecting in the future. i agree with your change to be more specific about recognizing
12:51 pm
interest or other data relevant to the task at hand rather than suggest that a part of the elections should take on more. i'm thinking that a way to do it, this city should find a way to make this happen. assuming the board of supervisors has to pass an ordinance to create the task force, they could ask all city departments to assemble data relevant to the task and provide that to whoever. the sooner that starts, we did not get into that until november. did it -- if that happened in june or july, so much the better. you get the point. i think we're on the same page.
12:52 pm
>> any other future trends, a the next piece is the outreach of the taskforce considering specific strategies to engage public housing who are otherwise not involved. organizations the face challenges. that was an addition. if anybody has -- >> i have the understanding that i was going to submit something on this particular section. i did and i e-mailed it to you. >> under recommendations? >> under community outreach recommendations. there it is. >> if you send it to me at the
12:53 pm
last minute, -- >> i do not now. i guess i misunderstood the instructions. i looked at this and thought it was a vague and general. >> it was sent this morning. >> i sent it in the middle of the night. >> i wanted to, on this, previously i also submitted something about, which i thought would go into the first part, about our process, what did we do? i submitted something that we tried to reach the ethnic population, and at a previous conversation, i think we said we're going to attach some of these ads as part of the appendix.
12:54 pm
i am not seeing that. i just wanted to say that. >> i had a deadline of last week. we are just putting this together as we go along. some of it probably did not give in. i was able to, in my latest draft, i was able to include ms. tidwell's outline of how she wanted us to look at whether we should list all of the district's based on the deviation or not. that is something we still need to talk about. >> we concluded we would do both. >> that is not a point. the point is that, this is something i mentioned earlier today, her question was whether
12:55 pm
we wanted to include, within that section, remember the sample -- the question is, i think we should concentrate on those that are a deviation larger or less than 1%. we would need to explain. >> we have not finished the outreach section. one element is or should the description of what we did rest in the report and the other is does this document -- >> that is for recommendation. >> this was in response. i wanted to say. >> call don. you will review this and
12:56 pm
incorporate it into the recommendations. >> i also submitted last week part of the process the outreach we did. i just wanted to say it was sent last week. >> i do not remember. >> it was still about ethnic media outreach where a said i listed the publications that we selected, i indicated the circulation to give a picture of the region. >> will you send it back to me again? >> for the purposes of this moment, let's reach agreement on to where it goes. looking on page 4, the first
12:57 pm
reference to outreach plans. page four, second paragraph. >> that is what she says she has. >> i can resend it. >> in the last paragraph, i am not sure if this -- if it is that relevant. i liked the idea that it is very general and and does not address any specific recommendations other than encourage public precipitation. and the fact that it is not a popularity contest, i do not know who want to mention any of that. stay objective as much as possible. >> you do not want to include that.
12:58 pm
>> i tend to agree, especially without more specificity about what the issues were. there are a couple of references to specific ideas like allowing for minority opinions to be recorded but in general i think it seems to have a point behind it but it is not clear what the specific points are. in its current state, i do not think it works. >> my thought is that our process has been different than the previous task force or even as a committee. i think it bears mentioning in the report, our decision making process. the fact that we listened to
12:59 pm
feedback, that we considered, not that three responded to every recommendation given to us for public comment but i think a reference, i think it might be a problem -- a recommendation, that listening to the community, having a redrawing in public, people felt they understood the transparency of our process. whether they got what they wanted or not, they respected our decision. >> we do not know how people felt about other task forces. some did more than we have done. i would hate to put myself in a position thawe


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on